While many see immediate effect as a procedural point following votes on actual legislation, there are policy implications, as evidenced by two of the more controversial measures approved this year.

The Michigan Senate in August denied immediate effect for Gov. Rick Snyder's plan to expand Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, delaying implementation until April.

Unlike the House, Senate rules require a record roll call vote on immediate effect. Republicans currently enjoy a supermajority, however, meaning they can push through any bill they like.

Senate Republicans typically vote in unison to give approved bills immediate effect. But when it came to Medicaid, tied as it was to Obamacare, several members broke the unwritten rule.

The delay will cost hundreds of thousands of Michigan residents access to Medicaid coverage for four months, and it will cost the state an estimated $6 million a day in federal funding, some of which would have offset state spending.

More recently, the Republican-led Legislature approved a controversial bill to move Michigan’s Court of Claims, which handles suits against the state and officials. The measure passed the House in a 57-52 vote, far short of a 2/3 majority.

House rules call for a "rising vote" on immediate effect, meaning members are supposed to stand to show support, but they allow the presiding officer to decide what support looks like. The constitution requires a roll call vote if one-fifth of members request one. But again, the officer determines what constitutes a request.

After the vote on the Court of Claims bill, Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas moved to give it immediate effect. Democrats began to shout, but Speaker Pro Tem John Walsh banged his gavel and ordered immediate effect. A Democrat challenged the ruling, but Walsh said it was inappropriate and moved on.

The House Journal, the official record of the chamber, recorded the interaction thusly: "The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving therefor." But 44 Democrats later submitted a statement objecting and explaining that they "did not" and "do not" support immediate effect.

There was no 2/3 majority in the 110-member Michigan House on the bill, that much was clear. But the measure, signed into law this week by Gov. Rick Snyder, will immediately transfer current, pending and future lawsuits from the Ingham County Circuit Court to the Court of Appeals.

House Republican spokesman Ari Adler suggested that Democrats complained about the procedure because they lost the policy debate. But Democrats who wanted to delay the case transfer said the immediate effect vote was more than just procedural; it was their last chance to affect policy.

"It's really unfair to those litigants," said state Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor. "It's incredibly obvious how moving these cases affects all those people in a very real way. If you've already been in court, if you've already been going through discovery, working with judges on motions, all of that's now put into limbo by the fact that these cases are being moved so precipitously."

This Court of Claims vote was not the first time House Democrats have complained about immediate effect after losing the ability to gavel through bills themselves.

In 2012, Democrats sued Republicans over the procedure. The Ingham County Circuit Court, acting as the state's Court of Claims, issued a preliminary injunction against immediate effect for two bills.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow picked up the story, suggesting Snyder and Republicans were doing something that was "radical beyond radical" -- without noting that Democrats used to do the same thing. MLive columnist Susan J. called out Maddow for hyperbole and Democrats for hypocrisy.

A three-judge Michigan Court of Appeals panel later lifted the injunction and ordered the case dismissed. The Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

"Since the Constitution is silent regarding the method for obtaining a one-fifth vote for a roll call vote, it is within the House's discretion to formulate its own rules and procedures regarding this issue," the Court of Appeals panel wrote.

A 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel disagreed, criticizing the ruling and the House procedure in an opinion on a separate challenge to Michigan’s former emergency manager law.

"Apparently, the Michigan Legislature believes the Michigan Constitution can be ignored," read the opinion. "Public Act 4 exemplifies the farce. The Michigan House presiding officer refused a request for a roll call vote and made Public Act 4 immediately effective through the obvious fiction that twelve House members immediately changed their positions."

The federal lawsuit, filed on behalf of Pontiac municipal workers who had their retirement plans modified by the city’s emergency manager in late 2011, did not originally include mention of immediate effect. But the federal appeals panel noted that the EM would not have had the authority to make the changes if the law had not taken effect so quickly.

The full federal appeals court is expected to rehear the case and consider the immediate effect rule. Michigan’s attorney general has argued that federal courts do not have the ability to interfere with an internal operation of the state Legislature.

"There is no precedent for such an intrusion on state sovereignty,” read a recent filing.
Jonathan Oosting is a Capitol reporter for MLive Media Group. Email him, find him on Google+ or follow him on Twitter.